426 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



You say it cannot be done and should not be done on the basis of 

 support prices. I am inclined to agree with you on that, but the 

 theory, after all, is that you are going to have a flexible program and 

 that the farmer will make shifts based upon improving his income if 

 you have a program flexible enough that you can offer inducements to 

 him to go from a crop which is in surplus to one which is in deficit. 



The theory of the Aiken bill and of your proposal is the same in that 

 respect ; is it not ? 



Mr. Talbott. I do not know of anyone that would disagree with the 

 theory that we do need adjustments within agriculture. I have not 

 heard anyone who disagrees with that. 



Mr. Hope. And the proponents of the Aiken bill contend that that 

 is all you ned to bring about the shifts and that when these proper 

 shifts come about farm prices will automatically adjust themselves. 

 That is the theory. 



I think the same thing ap])lies to the Aiken bill that would apply to 

 your program here, and that is the difficulty in bringing about shifts 

 at a time like this when the per capita consumption in this country is 

 going down, when our exports are going off, and when our productivity 

 is still on the increase. Undei' that set of circumstances, it seems to 

 me it is going to be very difficult to carry out any program that is 

 based upon the idea that we must continue to expand production and 

 expand it on a price basis Avhich is not lower but higher than it is now, 



I will grant that in the case of some commodities we could un- 

 doubtedly consume more, as the example of milk that has been given, 

 but it would be only on the basis of a low price to the consumer. Yet, 

 if we are going to ex])and the production of milk, we are going to 

 have to offer a gieater reward to the producers, presumably, so that 

 more ])eople who are now growing wheat will shift into the produc- 

 tion of milk. That will put it on a higher-price basis, and the result 

 will be that you will probably have a reduction in the consumption 

 of milk unless you reduce the price and compensate the farmers 

 thi'ough payments. Perhaps that is the way to do it. 



I can see that you are going to run into a situation where the cost 

 of such a ]^rogram might reach a tremendous sum in a period like 

 this, where consumption is declining and ])roductivity is increasing. 

 Thf.t is the thing that bothers me about the Aiken bill. It bothers 

 me about the Secretary's proposal and it bothers me about your pro- 

 posal. They all seem to be based upon the fact that we are not pro- 

 ducing enough and that consumers will consume more at high prices, 

 and that all we need do is make shifts from the production of one crop 

 to the production of another crop. 



Mr. Talbott. Congressman Hope, there are three things in relation 

 to the adjustments : The unit system with comparable values or com- 

 parable treatment for voluntary shifts insofar as that will obtain 

 voluntary shifts; the incentive su]:)port authority to the Secretary for 

 the parity plus where the country very greatly and in almost an emer- 

 gency basis needs expanded production in some crops; No. 3, the 

 stand-by authority for acreage adjustments and marketing quotas if, 

 as and when they are necessary. 



On the other side of the coin, I do not think that the National 

 Farmers Union, the Secretary, or anyone else is prepared or could 

 hope to present to this committee a program to deal with these phases 

 of agriculture that we are seeking to deal with, and that is not all 



